Quote:
Originally posted by Fronterra:
Quote:
Originally posted by off2cjb:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by Lazza:
[b]I suppose technically this lawsuit has merit. After all, atheists have rights and I can understand that a "devout atheist" would be pissed to have his child in a class where "under God" was chanted, ... even though no child is forced to say it. Subliminally the child is being taught there is a god. However I suspect the guy who filed this lawsuit is only interested in publicity.

I think the Supreme Court will keep "under God" in the pledge. If they uphold the ruling it will only be because it is an issue involving children. They might say "oh, the government can benignly say 'God' on adult matters like money and public buildings. But coercising children to say it a no-no".

...nah! Our conservative court will throw it out, kicking atheists and our constitution in the gonads. We'll then start seeing messages like "honk if you love Jesus" underneath traffic signs.

_Lazza
That is just it, the Supreme Court already ruled in favor of keeping "under God" in the pledge. I don't understand how a lesser court is able to overturn the Supreme Court. It isn't supposed to work that way, yet we citizens allow it.[/b]
Because it is San Francisco....I have said it a thousand times, that place is its own country.[/b]
The 9th Circuit is NOT just San Francisco. It barely is, other than the main office being there. Nearly all the judges are from outside of the San Francisco area.

Only 3 active are in San Francisco (21 are outside the area).

Only 3 senior Judges are in San Francisco (20 are outside the area).
_________________________
"Nature has constituted utility to man the standard and test of virtue. Men living in different countries, under different circumstances, different habits and regimens, may have different utilities; the same act, therefore, may be useful and consequently virtuous in one country which is injurious and vicious in another differently circumstanced" - Thomas Jefferson, moral relativist